Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> Very nice post; in particular this was a most illuminating discussion
>of the present tense. I would assume you have probably seen Sihler's
> _New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin_ . . .

Thank you. No, but I've held Sihler's book in my very hands (my doctoral
advisor used to say: "Books! You don't have time anymore for books! If
you get ahold of one, just read the introduction and conclusion. If you
don't have time for that, just read the conclusion. If you don't have
time for *that,* just hold it in your hands and rub the cover a bit to
get a feel for it." Dick Frank, a scholar and a gentleman.)

> One little item; in your very interesting discussion of OU MH KRIQHTE >it was not clear to me whether or not you were trying to call it an
>imperative of any sort. I didn't really think so, but the way it fell
>into the present and aorist imperative discussions made it seem a bit
>vague to me.

After re-reading my post, I can easily see how you read it that way
though. Sorry. No, I was treating it as an assertion of strong
conviction about the future. I guess I was thinking of OU MH as a
non-independent use of the subjunctive (though this is questionable) in
contrast to the independent uses as hortatory (1st person plural
[usually]) and prohibitory (MH + usually 2d person). I think of OU MH as
a controlling marker like hINA, but it really should be called
"independent" since it can stand as an independent clause (though it
often has a protasis).

> Let me thank you also for your earlier input into the aspect >discussion. I've found it all very interesting indeed.

Thank *you*--it's been so much fun I haven't done any (sabbatical)
writing this week. Next week I'll have to lurk and keep quiet so I can
get some work done!